Lawyers across the nation are using Google Maps to find the location of Marion, Kansas.Well, well, well.
The warranty has been withdrawn and all seized property will be returned
Bad warrant, bad search, bad law enforcement.
Step 1 of legal ass beating of the local judicial system and cops.
You can now stop your blind support of the warrant, search, and seizure.
www.kmbc.com
Nobody said that it was.
Which is generally a sign that someone had an "OH FECES!" moment.
I agree with what you wrote, @HangLow, but I have mixed feelings about it since The woman in question, although white, did pay with her life.
I believe that the line is supposed to be
When those journalists commit criminal acts using those computers, then those journalists can expect to have them seized as evidence in their up-coming criminal trial.
What part of probably cause escaped your grasp? The police had a court-issued warrant. Warrants are not issued on a whim, there must be probable cause that a crime has been, will be, or is in the process of being committed.
If it can be demonstrated before a court of law that there is probable cause that illegal photos of children may be on the computers at some Fox News location, then a warrant should be issued and the computers in questioned seized.
Law enforcement is not above the law, either. Corrupt cops and judges can go to prison, too. That appears to be the more applicable principle here
The legal term is "mitigation of damages" (sometimes referred to in the legal biz as "The client finally had an 'Oh SHIT!' moment.)
Well, someone obviously thought that no one would notice the police raiding a newspaper office or the home of a 98 year old woman. I mean, who would have thought that a newspaper publisher would know anyone in the newspaper biz who would have even the slightest interest in such a "non-story" - right?
Actually UK police officers DO have "qualified immunity" PROVIDED that they are operating "within the scope of their employment".
Your words are ringing bells, @TU Curmudgeon . I have recently heard "within the scope of his employment" spoken about one of the conditions that must be present in order for someone to get a trial moved out of a State court (for instance one in Georgia) to a federal court. I believe the other one is that he must be a federal officer. An environmental lawyer at The Department of Justice whose official job description does not include advising the president to invoke The Insurrection Act or stealing votes in Georgia will have to prove in court that those tasks were "within the scope of his employment" in order to move a trial away from District Attorney Willis.
@Juks, generally Kansas is a "Trumpie" (i.e. a Red) State, but even Kansas can only be pushed so far by the current totalitarian right wing. Kansas and Ohio have proven that The Supreme Court went too far in taking away women's rights under the pressure of the dark money that bought the current Supreme Court in the United States.
www.npr.org
What are you talking about? The issues raised in this thread have nothing to do with distributing pornography so your analogy is ludicrous.
Yes you did, when you excused their criminal acts. When so-called journalists illegally use their credentials to obtain personal information and then dox the individual, like the Marion County Record did, they need to go to prison. But then we have people like you who want criminals to roam the streets inflicting harm just because they are journalists. Could you be any more pathetic?
Not only that, but they will have to prove that their actions were "within the legitimate scope of their employment" and not simply "Ich habe nur Befehle befolgt." ("I did it because I was an employee and my boss told me to do it.").
If you agree freedom of the press isn't meant to refer specifically to journalists, I'm not sure how you can say that "nobody is saying it is," while also saying that I've been wrong about this in two threads.
